Topic: Start now! How to evaluate candidates for USAW president.

[Don Weideman]

Mike

That is pretty much how I see it, now that you mention
some details. I don't have a feel for the players though.
Any really charismatic personality in the group you
noted? I assume there is nothing that would automatically
disqualify any of them.
I would encourage you to keep the possibility of running for
the board open. Things change and your time may yet come.

Don

[Chris Ⓐ LeRoux]

In my speech, I stressed honesty and open communication only to be told later that the out in the open/ communication part cost me some votes.

Mike,

Do you see their point, or would you still run with the intention of stressing open communication?

[Mike Wittmer]

Hi Chris, I'm not sure what you mean.  What is/was "their point?"  I must have missed something.  I would not be interested in running if I couldn't do the right thing, and to me part of that would be giving honest answers to the membership and explaining my own actions/votes.  I'd be accountable.  I might make mistakes, might be wrong, but I'd be accountable.  Just my style.

[Mike Wittmer]

Don, I don't feel that I know them well enough to answer your question.  Personally, I like Steve Gough, Gayle Hatch.  I could probably think of others.

[Chris Ⓐ LeRoux]

Hi Chris, I'm not sure what you mean. What is/was "their point?" I must have missed something. I would not be interested in running if I couldn't do the right thing, and to me part of that would be giving honest answers to the membership and explaining my own actions/votes. I'd be accountable. I might make mistakes, might be wrong, but I'd be accountable. Just my style.

Mike,

I hear you. But, do you think it is possible that those that didn't vote for you because of your promise to be open and communicate might want what is best for the sport as well, or in other words think it is the right thing? Is it a reasonable opinion to believe that only official, well-considered communication be released? Is there ever a time where it might be beneficial to keep things quiet during the process, understanding that full disclosure will occur at the point of ultimate decision?

Do you think that USAW communications have ever been spun, twisted, and misrepresented to fuel the political ambitions of a minority or to grind a personal axe/vendetta? When such a negative reaction to decisions is normal and constant, is it understandable to refuse to feed the machine of arbitrary criticism?

Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

[Don Weideman]

Chris, Jon, Mike,

Thanks for the responses. This has been illuminating for me and I'm
sure others not familiar with the functions of the board.

Please continue, I feel like I'm watching Washington Journal on C-span
and the topic is USAW BOD. Maybe others have questions that you
three can field. Such as, is there regional groups that are in opposition
with one another and what are the main issues that divide the board?
Incites on the politics would be great to hear from people with actual
experience.

 Our own INSIDE POLITICS ............. thread

[Mike Wittmer]

"Mike,

I hear you. But, do you think it is possible that those that didn't vote for you because of your promise to be open and communicate might want what is best for the sport as well, or in other words think it is the right thing?"

I don't know.  Don't even know if it was true or just the opinions of others.  I think that there were only about ten delegates that had not made up their minds prior to the speeches.  So, it probably doesn't matter what is said at that time.  I would imagine that everyone has their own opinion as to what is the "right thing."

"Is it a reasonable opinion to believe that only official, well-considered communication be released?"

I don't know how to answer this either.  "Well-considered communication?"  What is that?  I think the membership is entitled to know how and why their elected officials vote on specific issues.  Any and all issues.

"Is there ever a time where it might be beneficial to keep things quiet during the process, understanding that full disclosure will occur at the point of ultimate decision?"

Yes.  I think charges of misconduct, stealing, immoral behavior. etc., should be confidential until the facts are known.  Then, if true, the truth can be told.  For example, if a coach at the OTC is accused of entering into a sexual relationship with a resident athlete, that should be fully investigated before being made public knowledge.  If a USAW official is charged with stealing money (charged from within), that should be handled in private until it is found to be true.

However, information regarding the regular day to day business of USAW should be available to members.

"Do you think that USAW communications have ever been spun, twisted, and misrepresented to fuel the political ambitions of a minority or to grind a personal axe/vendetta?"

Yes.

"When such a negative reaction to decisions is normal and constant, is it understandable to refuse to feed the machine of arbitrary criticism?"

Understandable?  Sure.  Acceptable?  No.  If you are doing something wrong you probably would want to keep it as covert as possible.  But, if you are doing what you believe to be right, you should have no reason to fear the truth.  In fact, once the facts are known the "arbitrary criticism" would be eliminated.  You may be subject to further criticism, but it would not be arbitrary.  You may not be re-elected if too many disagree with your stance on an issure.  But, you should be willing to stand up and explain your stance.

"Thanks for sharing your thoughts."

I don't share.  Liberals share.  I hope I answered your questions to your satisfaction.  If not, let me know and I'll take another shot at them.

Mike

[Chris Ⓐ LeRoux]

Well-considered communication?" What is that? I think the membership is entitled to know how and why their elected officials vote on specific issues. Any and all issues.

Yes, I agree. I don't think I was perfectly clear on this point. What I am asking is how information should be released. Should each BOD member issue individual statements? Should there be a joint statement? Should there be a statement made every hour, every day, or every week? How much time should the office staff and BOD put into communication versus decision-making and action? Should a minority of dissenters be allowed to set the agenda of the USAW's communications and plans? Should the staff and BOD drop whatever they are doing and defend their decisions anytime someone on goheavy is upset?

I think we agree. I am all for communication and openness. But, as you agreed, USAW communications have been spun, twisted, and misrepresented to fuel the political ambitions of a minority or to grind a personal axe/vendetta. So, I can understand the position that communications should primarily be made through official sources according to procedure. I hope that with a politically non-biased approach, our forum will be more conducive for communication from the BOD and staff to interested readers.